IAF Su-30MKI. Photo Credit: AndyDecember 03, 2009, (Sawf News) - Starting with the recent Su-30MKI accident, an India Today story makes the case that the IAF's fleet structure is skewed and its MMRCA tendering confused.
What's wrong with IAF's Sukhoi? asks defense journalist Manoj Joshi.
I wondered if the horribly confused analysis was even worth refuting, but since it was carried in a reputed publication I decided to do so. However, I will keep it short.
Manoj Joshi takes the routine temporary grounding of Su-30MKIs to make out a case that the IAF is excessively reliant on the "very expensive" Su-30MKI. He then goes on to suggest the service should procure cheaper fighters like Swedish Gripen, the American F- 16 or the Russian MiG-29.
Firstly, such groundings happen all the time and in all the Air Forces. The grounding does not mean the country is exposed. The Su-30MKIs can take to the skies within minutes in case of any emergency. It is a precautionary grounding to avoid any further unnecessary loss of life or equipment. Remember the Su-30MIKs operated for 12 years without a single accident.
Joshi's fixation on costs is based on delusional ideal force structure that he seems to have concocted over some heady beverages.
"An ideal air force has a pyramid structure with its best cutting edge fighter on top, a tier- two workhorse and, at the bottom, large numbers of less capable tier- three fighters. By their current plan, the IAF could end up with an inverted pyramid. It could end up with as many as 280 heavy Sukhoi 30- MKI and around 126 medium fighters for which a competition is currently underway."
Says who? Does the US have any "less capable tier-three fighters"?
Fighters can be broadly classified according to the role they are honed for like Interception (F-22, MiG-21), Interception and Attack (F-16, F-15, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI), Attack (Jaguars, Tornados) and Close Air Support (Hawk, Thunderbolt).
Lacking the technology to build highly capable multi-role fighters, Russia and China have relied on interceptors with some attack capability. They have relied on numbers to offset American technological lead. The MiG-21 is an example.
However, quantity has never been able to offset quality in any modern air war. As a result, both Russia and China are striving to improve the quality of their weapon systems, not focusing on numbers.
IAF too was forced to rely on numbers to begin with because of the country's alignment with the Soviet Union. The service fielded 20 MiG-21 squadrons at one time, more than half its fighter strength. As a result, the IAF was forced into a largely defensive role in the 1965 and 1971 wars.
IAF's limited attack capability tends to embolden Pakistan into risky adventures.
It is time for the IAF to acquire a formidable attack capability, and rely on quality rather than numbers. Additional MiG-29 and Gripen acquisition will force the IAF to continue in its defensive posture.
Joshi also assumes that the 250 MiG-21 variants, all cheap but capable fighters, will suddenly vanish when the MMRCA deal is inked. It will be decades before all of them are phased out. The MiG-21 Bison, for example, is a very capable air defense fighter.
He assumes that the LCA will never enter service, even though the IAF has already ordered two squadrons and the MOD's initial plans call for seven LCA squadrons.
Coming to think of it, Joshi is even more skeptical than me about the LCA. I just say it will be dumped on the IAF, which is not to suggest it is incapable of shooting down a lumber Atlantique across the border. Heck, with a capable AESA and BVR missile it could also knock down a PAF F-16 or A-10, conceivably even the F-35 that PAF will eventually acquire. (Okay, I made that last one up to rattle some of you folks again.)
News Copyright © Sawf News. May not be reproduced without explicit written permission